UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7245

VINCENT EUGENE WILLIAMS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

No. 13-7246

VINCENT EUGENE WILLIAMS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior 

District Judge. (3:11-cv-00417-REP; 3:12-cv-00305-REP)

Submitted: November 19, 2013 Decided: November 22, 2013

Before WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.
2

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Vincent Eugene Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, 

Lara Kate Jacobs Todd, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF 

VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Vincent Eugene Williams seeks to appeal the district 

court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)

petition and his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to reconsider. 

The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

Regarding the order denying Williams’ initial § 2254 

petition, we have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Williams has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 
4

Williams also seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a successive 

28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition, and dismissing it on that 

basis. This order is also not appealable unless a circuit 

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A); Reid, 369 F.3d at 369. We have 

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Williams has 

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a 

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

Additionally, we construe Williams’ notice of appeal and 

informal brief as an application to file a second or successive 

§ 2254 petition. United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 

(4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a 

successive § 2254 petition, a prisoner must assert claims based 

on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously 

unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on 

collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence, not 

previously discoverable by due diligence, that would be 

sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, 

but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would 

have found the petitioner guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2244(b)(2) (2006). Williams’ claims do not satisfy either of 

these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a 

successive § 2254 petition.
5

We dispense with oral argument and deny Williams’ 

motion to sanction state attorney general’s office because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED